Advantages of MF over 35mm

[David Brown]

Oh, Jeez. Am I gonna hafta start shooting 35mm again?

 

[markbarendt]

But Thomas makes me question my belief in the superiority of larger formats over 35mm.

Me too.

Part of the problem IMO is with the way the word "quality" is used as "code" for "better", regardless of the constraints of the situation.

The "quality" that any given tool imparts may be more properly described as that tool's "characteristic".

There are real differences in the "characteristics" that different tools impart on a photo. The real question is, which "characteristics" are important and possible in a given shot or situation?

The characteristics aren't all tech specs either.

Holgas in my experience impart "informality" and an RB67 imparts "formality" into both subject and photographer. Both are useful and desirable characteristics and have their place and time, but they are mutually exclusive.

 

[georg16nik]

If it weren't for Thomas Bertilsson, I would say 35mm is fine for beginners, but serious photographers should use larger format.

But Thomas makes me question my belief in the superiority of larger formats over 35mm......

Larger formats got undisputed lead when You need movements or You need to hide behind a tripod or under dark cloth
Optical performance wise, a decent RF Leitz or Zeiss lens for 135 format completely murders any of the MF/LF lenses.
Basic optical physics.

 

[Roger Cole]

Certainly you CAN get results from 35mm that are close to if not equal to MF (I remain unconvinced WRT LF though) but it is, in my experience, much easier to get great results from MF. MF negatives in general are a joy to print compared to 35mm.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Certainly you CAN get results from 35mm that are close to if not equal to MF (I remain unconvinced WRT LF though) but it is, in my experience, much easier to get great results from MF. MF negatives in general are a joy to print compared to 35mm.

And I enjoy printing 35mm negs more than 120, Roger. Isn't it funny how we're all so different?
Whatever makes people happy, and what gets them the results they need, they should use. I'm just very much against a notion of better or worse. Who's to say that just because a picture has more grain it is somehow inferior to one that doesn't? Unless the approach is scientific in nature, like surveillance or something like that. But in pictorial applications, it's an entirely subjective observation, and it's based on individual taste. All I really want from anybody is an empathy of sorts to acknowledge that there are more ways than their own way to view things. That behavior breeds respect and appreciation of each other. In the art world, there are no absolutes, only creativity, which we must encourage.

 

[markbarendt]

Larger formats got undisputed lead when You need movements or You need to hide behind a tripod or under dark cloth
Optical performance wise, a decent RF Leitz or Zeiss lens for 135 format completely murders any of the MF/LF lenses.
Basic optical physics.

You are leaving a very important part of the equation out in order to make your point.

The size of the "real estate" that a given scene is projected on to.

Sure across 1.5 square inches 35mm lenses can resolve more detail.

So what.

When you compare the total effect that larger format systems, which have say 3, 5, 20, or 80 square inches of real estate to define the "same scene and print", medium and large format lens resolution doesn't need to match 35mm standards to markedly increase net print resolution, smoothness of transitions.

As to hiding, I could suggest that people with small RF cameras are trying to be sneaky and hide the fact that they're even taking photos. Come to think of it that seems to be a normal selling point of the quiet shutter and small size.

Seems a bit silly to be arguing that point don't ya think?

 

[Roger Cole]

And I enjoy printing 35mm negs more than 120, Roger. Isn't it funny how we're all so different?
Whatever makes people happy, and what gets them the results they need, they should use. I'm just very much against a notion of better or worse. Who's to say that just because a picture has more grain it is somehow inferior to one that doesn't? Unless the approach is scientific in nature, like surveillance or something like that. But in pictorial applications, it's an entirely subjective observation, and it's based on individual taste. All I really want from anybody is an empathy of sorts to acknowledge that there are more ways than their own way to view things. That behavior breeds respect and appreciation of each other. In the art world, there are no absolutes, only creativity, which we must encourage.

I understand. Well I understand what you're saying, I'm not sure I understand how 35mm can be more fun to print than 120, but if it is, by all means do it. The digi crowd can't understand why I think doing darkroom work at all is fun. People are very different!

 

[markbarendt]

And I enjoy printing 35mm negs more than 120, Roger. Isn't it funny how we're all so different?
Whatever makes people happy, and what gets them the results they need, they should use. I'm just very much against a notion of better or worse. Who's to say that just because a picture has more grain it is somehow inferior to one that doesn't? Unless the approach is scientific in nature, like surveillance or something like that. But in pictorial applications, it's an entirely subjective observation, and it's based on individual taste. All I really want from anybody is an empathy of sorts to acknowledge that there are more ways than their own way to view things. That behavior breeds respect and appreciation of each other. In the art world, there are no absolutes, only creativity, which we must encourage.

I agree fully Thomas.

I also admit to having chased a few magic bullets and things I thought were the "technical bests" in my time.

Those experiences have certainly entertained and enlightened me in many ways.

The first and most important lessons have been in defining what works best for me in various settings.

A second prominent set of lessons (a subset of the first), very much has been in the social/emotional aspects of shooting; interacting with my subject, within my frame of mind/mood/intent, and with other shooters/my buddies.

 

[cliveh]

I also enjoy printing 35mm in preference to a larger format. But it maybe because when printing 35mm I’m usually using a condenser enlarger and the process feels more intuitive that when I’m printing 6 X 6 on a diffuser. When I’m working with the diffuser, it feels more like I’m doing a task, or perhaps I just have to think more about what I’m doing.

 

[Bill Burk]

Optical performance wise, a decent RF Leitz or Zeiss lens for 135 format completely murders any of the MF/LF lenses. Basic optical physics.

These are, (I am lucky to be able to say because I have one of each), playing field levelers...

As markbarendt pointed out, 4x5 film has a larger playing field. So it doesn't require as fine a lens to be level with 35mm.

You gotta respect the photographer's choice here... I still like that I moved up to 4x5, it delivers as promised. 35mm can compare favorably to 4x5 - just use slow film and a tripod and do a good job with exposure and development. [for 11x14 silver gelatin print size].

You can take 35mm to a different level by adding fast film and shooting fast action... I enjoy experimenting in that genre with large rangefinders... Here they don't deliver as many shots, and there are more near misses due to handling (with 35mm I can more easily capture the decisive moment). But when I land one, it's a whale.

 

[JBrunner]

I think it's sorta like the difference between a turbo 4 and a big V8. Both are capable of producing a lot of horsepower, but they go about it in different ways.

 

[fmajor]

It's like the old adage, "There's no replacement for displacement". As in JBrunner's example above of the turbo 4-cylinder and a big 'ol V8 - both get to the "whole lotta horsepower" in different ways. However, adding a turbo to the V8 changes things (photographic vernacular equivalency could be better printing or better lenses with the medium format size)...... Also, there are more measurements than strictly horsepower - torque, motor longevity, reliability and/or economy for example.

I wonder if the best 35mm lenses resolve "better" than the "best" medium-format lenses (or if that metric really matters....).

 

[lxdude]

I wonder if the best 35mm lenses resolve "better" than the "best" medium-format lenses (or if that metric really matters....).

The answer is no, not really. Some Zeiss lenses for Hasselblads have tested well into the 90 lpmm range at optimum apertures ; some Mamiya lenses also.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The answer is no, not really. Some Zeiss lenses for Hasselblads have tested well into the 90 lpmm range at optimum apertures ; some Mamiya lenses also.

And some of the best Zeiss lenses for 35mm (Contax 50mm f1.4 IIRC) could resolve 135 lp/mm, if not more. The problem becomes with 35mm that the lenses may have super-high resolving power, but it eventually gets past the ability of the film to record... you can't really take advantage of that resolution if you're not shooting say Velvia or Kodachrome 25. A 400 speed film's grain will undermine that resolution.

 

[Bill Burk]

Picked up a couple rolls 35mm 100TMAX today... I've got a Zeiss 50mm f/1.5, Leitz 50mm f/2.0, SMCT 50mm f/1.4 and OM family that I'm willing to put in front of the film...

What do you think will give the best results?

 

[markbarendt]

Picked up a couple rolls 35mm 100TMAX today... I've got a Zeiss 50mm f/1.5, Leitz 50mm f/2.0, SMCT 50mm f/1.4 and OM family that I'm willing to put in front of the film...

What do you think will give the best results?

1385 posts and still chasing that ever illusive magic bullet, eh?

Eenie, meanie...

 

[Bill Burk]

1385 posts and still chasing that ever illusive magic bullet, eh?

Eenie, meanie...

You ever get the feeling that what you've been looking for has been in front of you all along?

 

[markbarendt]

You ever get the feeling that what you've been looking for has been in front of you all along?

Oh yeah, regularly.

 

[georg16nik]

....... I wonder if the best 35mm lenses resolve "better" than the "best" medium-format lenses (or if that metric really matters....).

The answer is no, not really.

And some of the best Zeiss lenses for 35mm (Contax 50mm f1.4 IIRC) could resolve 135 lp/mm, if not more. The problem becomes with 35mm that the lenses may have super-high resolving power, but it eventually gets past the ability of the film to record... you can't really take advantage of that resolution if you're not shooting say Velvia or Kodachrome 25. A 400 speed film's grain will undermine that resolution.

Zeiss Camera Lens News No. 24 Feb 2006 - Zeiss Biogon T * 2,8 / 25 ZM in combo with Spur Orthopan UR film reached 400 lp/mm @ f4;
The diffraction limit of white light at f4.

btw: Velvia or Kodachrome 25 have no chance. Back in 1996 at Photokina, Zeiss displayed The sharpest color photos ever taken.. 200 lp/mm on Kodak Ektar 25 (now discontinued).

Some Zeiss lenses for Hasselblads have tested well into the 90 lpmm range at optimum apertures ; some Mamiya lenses also.

Zeiss Camera Lens News No. 17 September 2002 - ...we examined Agfaortho 25, an orthochromatic black & white film from Agfa, featuring enormous resolving power and virtually no grain. Testing this film, we reached beyond 250 lp/mm using Hasselblad cameras with the lenses Zeiss Distagon T* 3,5/60 and Zeiss Superachromat 5,6/250.

 

[lxdude]

And some of the best Zeiss lenses for 35mm (Contax 50mm f1.4 IIRC) could resolve 135 lp/mm, if not more. The problem becomes with 35mm that the lenses may have super-high resolving power, but it eventually gets past the ability of the film to record... you can't really take advantage of that resolution if you're not shooting say Velvia or Kodachrome 25. A 400 speed film's grain will undermine that resolution.

Right you are. Hence the "not really".

Thanks for pointing that out.

There's been for a long time a notion that MF lenses will not match or exceed 35mm format lenses, period. The reality is that quite a few MF lenses will match or exceed the resolution of some well-regarded 35mm format lenses. I just went back and looked at some tests of MF lenses, and some Zeiss and some Mamiya lenses resolve over 100 lpmm at some apertures. That is considered stellar in 35mm format, with most lenses not even achieving into the 90's.
Not that resolution is the be-all and end-all, anyway, in any format. The beauty of MF and LF is due to so much more than resolution.

 

[Bill Burk]

I don't know what's worse, that I can't make up my mind which camera to use or that I just quoted Taylor Swift...

So to sum up (where's that "print my book" button?)...

I moved up to 4x5 because I wanted more resolution than I was getting with 35mm Panatomic-X (to my recollection I never shot 35mm 100TMAX). 100TMAX is not advertised as higher resolution than Panatomic-X... But it is advertised as sharper. Over time, I have come to realize what I liked most about the move to 4x5 TMY2 wasn't resolution... It was sharpness.

So it comes round full circle... Maybe I should have given 35mm 100TMAX a chance in 1987

I kind of think the problem is I'm not a magic bullet chaser (another one of the words that makes my heart go thump). I pick one thing and stick with it for a really long time. So, encouraged by my friends here, having found that pretty much everything works. I am finally going to give a look at this film to see if it was totally unecessary for me to move to 4x5...

Thinking out loud, I could use the OM system since that was my "professional" gear, or the Zeiss (since I have a 40.5mm K2 filter for it, the filter I would most likely want).

 

[Roger Cole]

I don't know what's worse, that I can't make up my mind which camera to use or that I just quoted Taylor Swift...

So to sum up (where's that "print my book" button?)...

I moved up to 4x5 because I wanted more resolution than I was getting with 35mm Panatomic-X (to my recollection I never shot 35mm 100TMAX). 100TMAX is not advertised as higher resolution than Panatomic-X... But it is advertised as sharper. Over time, I have come to realize what I liked most about the move to 4x5 TMY2 wasn't resolution... It was sharpness.

So it comes round full circle... Maybe I should have given 35mm 100TMAX a chance in 1987

I kind of think the problem is I'm not a magic bullet chaser (another one of the words that makes my heart go thump). I pick one thing and stick with it for a really long time. So, encouraged by my friends here, having found that pretty much everything works. I am finally going to give a look at this film to see if it was totally unecessary for me to move to 4x5...

Thinking out loud, I could use the OM system since that was my "professional" gear, or the Zeiss (since I have a 40.5mm K2 filter for it, the filter I would most likely want).

There are other reasons to shoot 4x5 - view camera movements, the contemplative nature of view camera work, and tailoring development for each negative come to mind.

If all I cared about was sharpness/resolution/lack of grain I'd get myself an RB67 system and give up 4x5 for 6x7. Sometimes I get tempted to skip the sheet film hassles and actually do this, but when it comes down to it I just really like working with the big camera. I'd probably like 8x10 even more, but only if I had an 8x10 enlarger. I'm just not going to be content with contact prints and scanning. Heck, with the RB I'd even use the zone system. Just have three backs for normal B&W one, one destined for N development, one for something like N+2 and one for N-2 or so. With modern VC papers that would cover any contrast range I'd be likely to encounter. And if it didn't, I could always devote an entire roll to the odd shot outside the norm, and still not spend more money on it than I would say three bracketed sheets of 4x5.

 

[lxdude]

Zeiss Camera Lens News No. 17 September 2002 - ...we examined Agfaortho 25, an orthochromatic black & white film from Agfa, featuring enormous resolving power and virtually no grain. Testing this film, we reached beyond 250 lp/mm using Hasselblad cameras with the lenses Zeiss Distagon T* 3,5/60 and Zeiss Superachromat 5,6/250.

Thanks for that. I was going by memory on several tests from different sources and also wanted to be conservative in my claim. Of course, perfect conditions don't exist in the field, anyway.

Agfaortho 25 is not an "ordinary" film, but still, very impressive.

 

[markbarendt]

So it comes round full circle... Maybe I should have given 35mm 100TMAX a chance in 1987

I kind of think the problem is I'm not a magic bullet chaser (another one of the words that makes my heart go thump). I pick one thing and stick with it for a really long time. So, encouraged by my friends here, having found that pretty much everything works. I am finally going to give a look at this film to see if it was totally unecessary for me to move to 4x5...

This is one reason why I don't get hung up on one film.

As to 4x5 being un-necessary, I think about what my 4x5s have taught me and know I'm truly blessed to have them.

 

[Bill Burk]

There are other reasons to shoot 4x5 - view camera movements, the contemplative nature of view camera work, and tailoring development for each negative come to mind.

Looked at "Blue Hole" while writing this (always a pleasure to see your print), so I know there are things you can do (and have done) only with 4x5... No worries Roger, I'll still shoot and appreciate 4x5.

I never* had problem with lack of movements in 35mm. And I can be contemplative in a crowd.

Even with roll film I keep development under sensitometric control. I just sacrifice a few frames at the beginning of a roll for a test strip... And I get a curve of what Contrast Index I actually develop that roll to. I find sensitometry just as valuable to know where you are (so you can knowingly develop more or less next time)... as it is to tailor each shot to the specific lighting.

*Of course there were occasional thoughts of buying a shift lens but I never shelled out for one.